Advice : Wedding, Marriage, Engagement, Anniversary

Here is another spouse-killing technique employed frequently in our affluent society.

Marge Edgeworth looks across the settee at her husband, who is engrossed in the evening paper. Between them sits a tinkling martini pitcher and Marge is sipping her second drink. This is her method of gaining courage, and she needs it, for earlier in the afternoon she decided to put an end to a situation which has been bothering her.

She clenches her fists, sits up straight.

“George, put down that paper,” she says in a loud half-command, half-whine.

“Eh, what?”

“Put down that damned paper,” shouts Marge. “Oh, oh … sure.”

George lets the newspaper fall to his lap, removes his glasses, and says, ‘Well, what’s up?”

“George,” Marge says, trying to speak calmly, “why don’t we ever talk together anymore?”

George looks at her quizzically and drops his shoulders, a sign of constraint. “I didn’t know we weren’t talking to each other, dear.”

“Oh, come now, you know what I mean. You used to tell me about things, your work and all. That was when you always used to say you loved me.”

George looks at his wife as if he were about to curse. He scratches his ear and with effort forces a smile. ‘Well, dear, what would you like to talk about?”

This routine of George’s deserves the label of “the perfect squelch.”

Marge twirls her martini glass–because she finds herself unable to think of anything to say. She wants to get some conversation from her husband, not to make a speech herself. She doesn’t know has never yet learned that one cannot compel a “spontaneous” response.

‘Well, I don’t know,” she says after a long pause. “Did anything interesting happen today?”

“No, no, dear, not a thing. Just the usual routine.”

George starts to pick up the paper. He hesitates, looking over the top of his spectacles.

“Oh, by the way, Marge, we’ll be going to the Waterhouses tomorrow night and I think it would be a good idea if you got a new dress. You’ve been much too conservative about spending money on yourself, and I think you’ve got a new dress coming.”

“Oh, thank you, dear,” says Marge with a grateful smile. “I’ll take a look and see what I can find.”

While she is speaking, George has returned to his paper.

Marge reaches for the pitcher to start her third martini.

If a psychiatrist were to step into their living room at that moment and say, “Look here, George, old fellow, you’re being destructive,” this husband would be startled. George regards himself as a generous man. He considers his wife’s life easy and pleasant. And he is absolutely sure that his business success is responsible for the pleasant life that Marge is leading. How can she complain when he is working so hard and doing so much for her? “Why:’ he thinks to himself, “it’s almost a shame how hard executives work to maintain their families. The coronary rate of executives is the highest in the nation.” The fact that this has nothing to do with what Marge is talking about is completely ignored.

Somehow Marge is unable to bring her complaint into the open. If she does buy a dress for the Waterhouse party, especially if it’s an expensive one, she has further contributed to her own problem. How can you complain about a man who allows you to buy whatever you want?

Characteristic of this type of marital combat is the way in which George suggests-almost requires-Marge to buy things for herself. Or he may encourage her to visit her sister twice a week or to take a class at the local college in order to entertain herself, thereby reducing her demands on him for companionship. More and more Marge will learn to wait for these suggestions before she takes action. Particularly when one receives a reward such as a new dress-for following another’s dictates, loss of initiative is the usual result. For example, animals are trained to obey commands instantly by being given food each time they obey. After a few weeks or months of this reinforcement by rewards, they rely heavily on their masters’ commands to determine their behavior. A “well-trained” animal has learned to not take initiative. Marge, also, under a “reward” system such as that used by George, begins to lose her initiative, and this loss in turn places more responsibility on George to arrange her life for her.

A vicious cycle develops, for she gets from George only the bare victuals of life, not the emotional nourishment she desires and needs. But rather than get nothing at all from him she plays the game “Thanks, darling.” At the same time she does not help George solve their problem, because by accepting, she gives him the illusion that he is doing what she wants and thus has satisfied her. George also has learned his role. If Marge refuses the gifts and insists on more companionship instead, George will have to learn a new role because he will then know that the gifts are not those Marge desires most and that therefore, although they may be effective in silencing her complaints for the moment, she will soon be dissatisfied again.

Many women, too, take George’s role in this game.

How to Handle the “Thank-You-for-Nothing” Pattern

What can be done to break up a “thank-you-for-nothing” behavior pattern? As in any of the marital misery games, it is essential to change the old routine. First of all, Marge must begin to take more initiative in determining her own behavior. One way is for her to respond each time George proposes that she buy something by saying, in effect, “A new dress? No, thank you, but I’ll take the money because I’m going to spend the weekend in New York with Mary so we can see some Broadway shows.” This technique accomplishes two things. It allows Marge to refuse and yet not to be denied, and it causes George to realize that he does not make his offer because he is completely benevolent, that he is not simply trying to please his wife. Marge, in order to change their relationship, should plan or buy something at least equal in value to whatever George has offered-but chosen by herself. If when Marge asks George to talk to her he suggests that she might go to a movie with her sister, Marge is to say, for example, “No thank you, dear, but I think I’ll ask some of my friends to come over for a game of bridge.”

Concurrently, a technique should be employed that is planned to reduce the repetitious aspect of this pattern, the routine meals and the nightly hiding-behind-the-newspaper act. Marge should take the initiative and responsibility for deliberately planning activities for the two of them-going to the theater, dinner parties, movies, or whatever. Marge should anticipate that they may not enjoy themselves, that there may not even be good conversation. The point is not that they have a good time, for like spontaneity, enjoyment cannot be compelled. Rather, the purpose is to initiate changes which will help break up the old patterns.

If George requires even more confrontation to make a change, Marge should aggressively arrange, and press, their going out two or three times a week, within the limit of their finances, until George rebels and thus becomes conscious of the repetitiousness of their past behavior. They can then negotiate a “happy medium” that will be acceptable and reasonable for both. As in most bargaining it is often wise to set one’s initial “price” a little higher than one requires, expecting to come down in the course of the negotiations.

There are more disaster seekers in our society than most people realize. In the symmetrical, or status-struggle, type of relationship, disaster seeking is frequently employed, for it is a clever technique for proving one’s equality or superiority. For example, Mary Bicker throws a dinner party and works hard to make it a success. She may lack the cultural polish and the experience of her husband, John, in this sort of thing, but she tries her best. Her husband, the disaster seeker, begins looking around for something that has gone wrong. Everybody may be having a pretty good time, but John discovers that the meat should have been browned a little more, or perhaps the cheese sauce needs another herb, or he makes sarcastic remarks because there are no guest towels in the bathroom or they are not set out where the guests can find them, and so forth. Consciously, John thinks that he’s doing a good thing. He feels that he’s improving the quality of the party and that Mary, who comes from a lower-middle-class family, will never learn how to throw a party properly if he doesn’t show her. Moreover, he suspects that left to herself, she would be satisfied with a mediocre performance and would continue to entertain in that way.

As a result of John’s constant heckling, Mary becomes tense and makes some real mistakes. The tense and frenetic feeling that John is stimulating with his disaster seeking soon spreads to the guests.

Having created a disaster, John is satisfied. Suddenly he becomes benevolent and tender; he takes charge of the party, corrects everything, and ends up a big hero, while his wife looks like a fool. John would have been very disappointed if he had not found something wrong with Mary’s party techniques.

Another variety of disaster seeker is known as the killjoy.

Al has just been invited to New York City to deliver a lecture, and he decides to take Carol along. AI’s lecture turns out to be a tremendous success, and he receives much applause. In his exuberance, he suggests that they go out to a well-known restaurant and celebrate with a wonderful meal. Carol counters, “But AI, can we really afford it? I’d feel guilty spending fifty dollars on a fancy dinner when I know that little Madeline is crying her eyes out for a pair of skates and the dentist’s bill hasn’t been paid yet.”

AI persuades her that they have both earned this celebration and so they go to the expensive French restaurant. Al is chatting away about how the pioneering ideas he has developed were accepted by the entire profession at his lecture, when Carol breaks in with “Why in hell can’t they write these menus in English?”

AI calls the waiter and gets him to translate the menu. When he is through, Carol asks him petulantly, «Are you sure the oysters are fresh?”

She continues along this line, and by the conclusion of the meal AI is convinced that he made a terrible mistake in coming to this restaurant. He feels guilty for having spent so much money, and is no longer holding forth about his very successful lecture and his plans for the future. He retreats into his shell and stops talking. When he begins to appear definitely glum, Carol reaches over, pats his hand, and tells him how proud she is of him. Now Carol becomes genuinely merry. She has not only searched for disaster; she has found it.

Marriage may be difficult, but divorce is difficult too. Married people often feel trapped, for divorce is frightening, painful, expensive, and subject to social disapproval, and it is one of the few important institutions in our culture for which there is no formal ritual. Birth, marriage, death, all have formal cultural rituals associated with them-divorce does not. Furthermore, there is evidence that even when divorce is feasible, it is not always the ideal solution for marital difficulties. Among white people, those who have been divorced have the highest suicide rate, and there are often emotional problems in children whose parents have experienced divorce or desertion. Most divorced people can’t stand loneliness-they try promiscuity and booze, and become more despairing; then they try remarriage, and here the divorce rate is still high, though some do better in the second marriage than they did in the first. When a person moves on into second, third, fourth, and fifth marriages, the chance that he will succeed becomes increasingly small. We end up saying that marriage is hard to live with and hard to live without.

On February 1, 1966, the state of California began a massive attempt to gather information on the background of divorces, in order to provide data for professionals trying to develop ways to lower the incredible divorce rate. Each of the major counties in California had over a thousand divorces in 1965, and San Mateo County reached seventy divorces for every one hundred marriages.

In California all lawsuits for divorce, annulment, and separate maintenance now are to be accompanied by a comprehensive questionnaire completed by both the husband and the wife. The state hopes to find out what factors are particularly important in divorce. Religious differences, ages of the spouses, race, and finances, and so on, will be examined.

The resulting statistics may also have other uses. In January, 1966, in San Francisco, a young widow and her son sued the city for $500,000 in damages because her husband of one month had been killed in a traffic accident on the city’s streetcar system. However, the city called in an expert from the University of California. He examined the case, considering such factors as the different religions of husband and wife, the fact that the girl was pregnant before/marriage, and the fact that both she and her husband were teenagers and that both had been raised in Marin County, where the divorce rate is exceedingly high, and concluded that the marriage would probably have been doomed even if the man had lived. The jury, deciding that the expert knew at least something about the matter, awarded the widow $145,000 instead of $500,000.

There soon may be a constitutional proposal in California for the creation of a State Department of Family Relations. This amendment, generally known as the Sitton-Winterfeld Initiative, is backed by a number of people throughout the state who feel that the present divorce procedures are terribly unfair and create more dissension among divorced people than is necessary. In particular, opponents of the existing divorce laws object strenuously to the adversary system, in which one of the separating mates, usually the husband, must be found guilty of some degree of cruelty-”extreme,” “mental,” or whatever-before a divorce can be granted. (Desertion and adultery are also grounds for divorce in California, but are rarely used.) The resulting courtroom confrontations produce perjured testimony and lasting bitterness that forever precludes reconciliation and leaves the children caught between two parents, who remain bitter and antagonistic even though divorced and living apart.

The backers (largely male) of this bill are also concerned about the monetary considerations involved. In particular, they feel that citizens are at the mercy of avaricious lawyers who provide quick divorces for couples with limited financial resources, but manage to introduce long, complicated procedures, with correspondingly large fees, when their clients are wealthy. They feel that the child-support payments in general are fair, but that provisions for the settlement of the estate and for alimony are way out of line.

The proposed State Department of Family Relations would have a governing board of six elected directors and regional boards in family-relation centers which could establish educational programs in family-relations matters. The department would have exclusive jurisdiction, subject to an appellate-court review, over divorce, annulment, and separate-maintenance proceedings. Parties could be represented by agents who were not attorneys. Divorces would be granted without regard to “guilt,” and they would be effective immediately; the current one-year interlocutory decree would be abolished. Alimony and support payments would be based on the ability to pay and on need.

The sponsors of the measure say the plan would work as follows:

The plan operates on a local basis in the county with a board of three county directors. These will be psychologists, sociologists, marriage counselors so they will have related educational backgrounds with experience in human relations.

A staff of referees-investigators, accountants, social workers and other specialists will handle individual cases. The emphasis at this level is on premarital and post-marital education and direct aid in altering problems.

Individuals in need of help may come to family arbitration center for informal discussion of their problems. If reconciliation methods fail and it is found advisable to terminate the marriage, divorce, annulment or separate maintenance will be granted by the three members of the Family Arbitration Board in an equitable and just manner. The rulings would have the same force and effect as a court of law.

The sponsors of the bill feel that obtaining divorces will not be “easier” under their proposed setup, and no increase in the divorce rate is anticipated. They claim instead that a complete and thorough investigation will be required, and divorces will be granted only when it is determined that the marriage should not continue. Counseling prior to the initiation of divorce proceedings should, by all accounts, act as a deterrent to the irresponsible or impetuous divorce begun in an escalating breakdown of communication. The sponsors feel that the program will be geared to prevent family breakups, and that there will be savings in welfare costs, juvenile-crime costs, legal fees, and other related costs. Operating revenue will be obtained from fees charged by the department.

It is likely that the proposed bill will stimulate great opposition. It is also apparent that many of the bill’s proponents are males who have been burned by the financial inequities of the present legal system. Nevertheless, it is a healthy and important sign that people are looking critically at the divorce situation. Under a brilliant and facile attorney, Robert Furlong, the judicial committee of the state assembly in California recently held hearings on divorce procedures and accumulated a great deal of evidence about current methods, trends, and inequities.

There is little doubt that the present system in most states strongly favors the woman as far as financial matters are concerned. Consequently, a man may enter marriage already on the defensive, since no one gets married without at least thinking about the possibility of divorce. The legal situation thus encourages the battle of the sexes. The popular idea that making divorce financially punitive for the man will reduce its frequency is an ill-conceived notion, to say the least, and belongs in the same destructive social category as capital punishment. ‘”

Psychiatrists, psychologists, and marriage counselors have recognized for some time that often the process of marital separation is relatively smooth, with due consideration shown by the spouses for the children and for each other, until attorneys enter the picture and the man and woman are forced to squabble over money. One of our acquaintances who were arranging to get a divorce attempted to be extremely fair to his wife and children, and was thoroughly rebuked by his attorney for being too generous. He had only recovered from this lecture when his wife’s attorney called to ask how he could be such a cold-hearted skinflint. In this case, the behavior of both attorneys was so untoward that the spouses finally came together to discuss their problems in person, and worked out their own settlement. Then they looked hard and long for a single attorney to represent them both.

In war, we encourage the bravery which leads men to get themselves killed, for example, by superb performance in the face of enemy fire, and then we go to fantastic lengths to save the lives of those who are wounded. This behavior is not paradoxical; we are saying, ‘We want you to be brave, and you may thereby die; but if you are brave and live, we will see that you receive all the rewards we can offer.”

Marriage too, is encouraged by the culture, but there have been little compensation for the wounded; they are just told that they shouldn’t have been hurt in the first place and it’s their own fault if they were. Even the “cooling-off” period provided by the interlocutory decree is of little use; by the time it is obtained, the preceding legal maneuverings have so stirred up the roaring fires that it is often too late for cooling off.

The Australian system seems far more realistic. In Australia, divorce is not permitted until a marriage has been in existence at least three years (annulments may be granted sooner under certain unusual circumstances). Thus people are not able to rush in and out of marriage. Before a divorce is granted, conciliation is attempted and every resource which might help save the marriage is utilized. But if a divorce is obtained, it becomes effective immediately. Our system reminds one of capital punishment; we cling to it despite years of testimony that punishment does not serve as a deterrent.

When a divorce is necessary, the separation should be amicable.

This is particularly important if there are children, since they become cross monitors; that is, all unawares, they transmit messages from one parent to the other-s-often hateful messages.

The traditional practice among psychiatrists and marriage therapists has been neither to recommend divorce nor to stand in the way of a couple wishing a divorce. This canniness is desirable. There are so many complicated factors in any marital breakup that it is difficult to see the situation as a coherent whole. Often it is only after a person has been divorced that he can look at the marriage and decide realistically whether he is better or worse off than he was before it was dissolved. If a third person enters the picture, he is apt to be blamed for causing the divorce, even if, in fact, the couple had wished it but lacked the guts to go through with it until they were on the brink and called in the third party to act as a go-between.

In our opinion, there is one fact that stands out in most family breakdowns. The best reason for divorce is that the man and wife cannot function together without serious damage to one or both, physically or emotionally.

Harry Swenson is a patient man-or so it seems. His blood pressure indicates he is more restrained than patient. Living with Shirley is one cause of his difficulty, for Shirley is a master of conversational finesse and timing, particularly in the art of “cross complaining.”

For example, when Harry brings up what he believes is a reasonable complaint, such as, “Dear, can’t we ever have lamb any more?” Shirley quickly replies with something like this:

“Harry, you can’t keep nagging me about the money I spend and then tell me to buy lamb at today’s prices. You are terribly inconsistent.” (Shirley knows perfectly well that Harry actually only brings up the question of spending money when she buys expensive clothes impetuously and without having budgeted for them.) If Harry begins to complain about Shirley’s arranging a bridge party on Sunday afternoon, she says something like, ‘What’s the matter, Harry? Don’t you want the girls to see how sloppy you are on weekends?”

So Harry retracts and the subject is changed.

Society has created artificial standards defining the good marriage, the bad marriage, the normal marriage. Many spouses are upset because they are afraid their relationship doesn’t “measure up.” This fear is unnecessary; it diminishes the value of their real assets and limits the spouses’ functionality.

Psychiatrists, psychologists, and others laboring in the arena of mental-health research or service, constantly make judgments about the relative degree of sickness of an individual. The public, too, accepts the concept of normality and assumes that personalities and relationships can be classified as normal or abnormal. Yet, surprisingly enough, there is no standard of normality which can be used as a yardstick.

For some years, the Mental Research Institute in Palo Alto, California, has been studying average families, obtained at random either from the phone book or through the school system. While no absolute standards have been determined, a few generalizations relevant to the consideration of normality and abnormality can be drawn from these studies. There appear to be many different styles of family living, and many different childrearing practices, so that it is meaningless to say, for example, that spanking is or is not good, or that the child should or should not be treated in some particular fashion. There are families with whom one would prefer to spend Christmas Day, and others who would be better company on News Year’s Eve, but one cannot conclude that some of these are therefore superior, or more normal, than others. There are parents who appear to live together in extreme harmony but have nervous children, and parents who get along miserably but have children who seem to function quite well. The underlying currents in the family are often subtle and not discernible by talking to the family members individually.

Much child-rearing advice is based on the individual’s reconstruction of his own childhood. This is an unreliable approach not only because the years disguise what actually occurred, but because family living is a game where not all of the rules are known to the players. Much of the research on marriage and the family has depended heavily or entirely on retrospective data (the individual is asked, for example, to describe various aspects of his childhood). Yet mothers have been known to have almost totally unreliable memories concerning such relatively simple matters as the ages at which their children walked,. were toilet trained, spoke, and so forth-even when the events occurred as recently as five years earlier, and even though the mothers were certain of the validity of their answers.

So, once more we caution spouses not to feel that their marriage is a failure because it does not measure up to the “normal.” There is no such thing.

Nevertheless, even when artificial standards of judgment are abandoned, it is of course evident that some marriages are less successful than the participants would like them to be. In the chapters that follow, various common difficulties are discussed. Some of these, if allowed to persist, may eventually have a deeply corrosive effect on the marital relationship. However, once the spouses become aware of these destructive elements, they may take steps to eliminate them; specific suggestions about how to do so are included in our discussion.

The Fallen Domino
Some marriages are so fraught with nagging, destructive behavior, and the imputation of motives, that they seem to smoke from discord. The spouses appear to be on the point either of obtaining a divorce or of murdering each other. Yet, even in such cases it frequently happens that the relationship is reasonably sound. What has happened may resemble the collapse of a line of dominoes when the first one is hit-except that in this case the behavior is reversible. If the head domino is straightened up, the others may jump back into an upright position on their own. The problem, then, is to get that first domino straightened up.

In other words, in many instances of marital difficulty one powerful irritant has poisoned the relationship, and because both parties are perhaps stubborn or defensively rigid, this one destructive element contaminates the entire spectrum of marital behavior.

An example is the case of Cynthia and Joseph Special. Cynthia and Joe had been happily married for four years. They didn’t have much money and they had no children. Cynthia worked as a librarian and Joe worked for a paper-manufacturing company. Very slowly during the first four years they furnished their own home, paying cash for everything.

At the end of the four years, two things happened. A child was born-followed in a year by another-and Joe became assistant” manager of the paper plant. Now Cynthia had of course left her interesting job at the library and was home all day with two infants. Joe, as assistant manager, no longer was able to leave the office at five o’clock. He had to stay behind to check up on that day’s production, or to see about personnel, and attend the executive meeting at six o’clock.

When Joe came home at about seven thirty, he was fatigued.

Cynthia was also fatigued. With two young children, the small house was always untidy, and Cynthia didn’t have time to prepare the kind of meals Joe was fond of. They no longer spent a pleasant hour drinking a couple of cocktails, discussing the interesting things which happened during the day, followed by a simple but elegant meal, eaten in leisurely fashion, and then a play or a motion picture. Joe had his drink at the executive meeting, and when he arrived home he was eager to eat quickly and go to bed. Slowly, Cynthia began to believe that they no longer were companions or equals, that Joe had more interest in his business than in his family. Joe felt that Cynthia was being selfish when she wanted to go out after the children were asleep. He became irritable when she asked him to skip having drinks with the executives and, instead, go back to the old system of spending an hour before dinner with her in the evening.

The situation is one with which most people are quite familiar.

Slowly, Cynthia began to take less interest in preparing even reasonably fancy meals for dinner. Joe gulped his food and no longer commented on her efforts. And when Joe was amorous in bed, Cynthia said she was too tired from looking after the children, feeling vaguely angry that Joe seemed to be interested only when he was in the mood, and was unresponsive to her needs when she showed the initiative.

Joe started eating out with other executives two or three times a week. Slowly, their needs became divergent in one area of their relationship after another, and Cynthia and Joe were about ready for a divorce.

Cynthia and Joe decided to consult a professional counselor before they saw a lawyer. He recognized the falling-domino pattern almost immediately. He perceived that one basic, relatively small irritant was poisoning the whole marriage system, and he was able to suggest a solution. Here is what they did.

At the executive meetings at six o’clock, Joe abstained from having his cocktail and instead had what Franklin Delano Roosevelt called a horse’s neck, ginger ale with a piece of lemon in it. Joe found he could now enjoy a drink a little bit later with his wife.

Instead of eating immediately upon returning home from the office, Joe took a hot shower and rested for almost an hour. The children were already asleep, and Cynthia too was able to shower and nap. When they got up, both put on fresh clothes and had a cocktail and dinner. What difference did it make if they ate at eight thirty every evening instead of seven thirty? The delay enabled them to refresh themselves and enjoy the evening.

When Joe had his two-week vacation, Cynthia visited her mother for two or three days while Joe stayed at home and took care of the children. The experience gave him some perspective on what a time-consuming job and intellectually unstimulating day Cynthia usually had.

At one of the office executive meetings, Joe pointed out that the problem of working late and getting home tired was probably common to all executives. He suggested that the wives be permitted to spend a day at the office, one at a time, to gain some understanding of their husbands’ work and responsibilities. The president thought this was a good idea. Soon Cynthia spent a day watching Joe.

One night a week Cynthia hired a responsible baby-sitter and she and Joe went out to a restaurant. They gussied up, and had a gay evening just like old times.

Cynthia and Joe had a discussion as to whether his particular job with its extraordinarily long hours was worth keeping. Should he quit and find another one? Cynthia volunteered that since Joe had been promoted quite recently, it seemed normal for him to have long hours in the new position, but presumably when he became more familiar with the routine he would be able to maintain a more normal schedule again. Cynthia recognized that this was the difficult period in Joe’s career, and she was happy to share the extra hard work. Joe responded sincerely that he knew caring for two small children was the most trying part of the family-raising cycle for Cynthia, and wondered what he could do to make life easier and more pleasant for her. In their discussion neither of them came up with any suggestions for making

How to Handle the Falling-Domino Pattern

To determine if a falling-domino situation exists in their own marriage, spouses should sit down together and each answer the following question (after tossing a coin to see who will go first):

‘What is the one thing which annoys me the most about you?” If the major complaints involve physical circumstances or clearly defined ways of behaving, the spouses may be able to correct them without outside help. Here are some examples of such complaints.

“I can’t stand to make love when you’ve been drinking too much. It destroys your attractiveness.”

“You always eat with your mouth open at the table, and it makes me sick to my stomach.”

“Your bad breath drives me crazy.” “The house always looks like a pigsty.”

“You’re a slob. No matter how much I clean up the house, you always drop your clothes and ashes all over.”

“Half the time you’re late for dinner and you never telephone to let me know. Half our meals get burned.”

“You’ve put on twenty pounds and I’m repulsed by fat people.” All of these complaints and annoyances are reasonably correctable. Yet if they are not corrected, they will cause problems in other areas. If a person registers a valid complaint of a correctable nature and the spouse-from stubbornness or lethargy refuses to alter his behavior, it is likely that the complainer will in turn refuse to make changes requested by the other. The message here seems to be, “If you won’t change for me, then I won’t change for you.” Most people actually fear giving in to another repeatedly because they sense that this will become a one-sided pattern and they will have to give in on everything henceforth. In many cases, this fear is justified. Only when the fear is proven to be ungrounded in fact, when the other party evidences an equal willingness to compromise and to change, can the fear be relinquished and relaxed flexibility take its place.

Once reasonable complaints are remedied, quite frequently other negative factors disappear. Just the act of getting together and discussing how to improve the marriage has a general therapeutic effect on many areas of behavior. The spouses are trying to have a functional relationship and that’s half the victory. It’s one big step toward realistic trust in a responsible partnership.

How to cultivate fidelity presents one of the most difficult problems for marital living together. Unfortunately, we are uncertain not only of our partners, but of ourselves. So long as both partners have the confidence to face problems together and squarely, no problem actually will disturb the marital relationship. No matter how difficult a problem may be-and the problem of infidelity certainly is not an easy one-it should and can be solved jointly, provided both have faith, courage, and the desire for a solution. The greater the problems which people manage to solve together, the closer grows their relationship, because in their troubles they need and may find each other. After the danger is over, a sense of gratefulness for the mutual help and understanding deepens the all-important feeling of belonging.

Many regard jealousy as an adequate response to philandering tendencies in the mate. They feel there is no alternative, save to close their eyes deliberately and maintain an imperturbable ignorance that might prove to be more comfortable, but does not solve the problem. They forget that jealousy does not ever solve any problem either. Instead of bringing back the straying mate, it only increases the distance and endangers the unity. Suspicion and fear which lead inevitably to open hostility merely aggravate the problem which first tempted the mate to look outside the marriage for erotic adventures.

Shall we then ignore the danger of losing our mate? Or permit him to be unfaithful? No one could recommend that. But actually neither danger is avoided by jealousy. We can easily recognize the foolishness of a woman who is constantly afraid that her healthy husband may die someday, and envisions in every slight ailment potential complications. It seems obvious that her fear expresses other perturbations than actual concern with a possible and far distant loss. The same is true of jealousy. The fear of losing one’s mate does not in itself provoke jealousy. Neither does the loss of a mate. A husband suffering intensely because his wife has left him for another man may rationalize his emotions by insisting that he cannot live without her. The fallacy of this conviction would immediately become apparent if he were asked how he would feel if she were dead. He would then admit that alternative to be terrible, and yet . . . Here he might stop and discover that it is a peculiar kind of love which makes him actually prefer her death to her living with someone else.

Infidelity often is just a bugaboo. Every look one’s husband casts may foretell potential fatal complications. Slight tendencies to infidelity are certainly not less frequent or more dangerous than a common cold. It can lead to fatal pneumonia, but generally does not. Putting a person to bed at the first sniffle is as foolish as letting him go out in the rain when his temperature rises. A simple cold needs proper care; either neglect or over anxiety can be harmful. The first signs of undue extra-marital interests indicate disorder. Neglect or overzealousness can complicate the ailment. A clever and understanding mate will find many subtle ways of drawing an adventuring partner back without oppressing his feeling of freedom and independence. Jealousy is neither helpful nor necessary.

If fear of loss and fear of infidelity do not necessarily entail jealousy, what then are its causes? In order to understand any human emotion we must discover its actual accomplishments and hence its purposes. Jealousy never prevents loss or infidelity. This fact alone proves convincingly that it is psychologically not concerned with either. But what is actually achieved by jealousy?

What is the role of sex in marriage?

Like every other element in the marital relationship, sex involves behavior between individuals. The response of each partner varies with his mood, his physical state, and the oscillations of the relationship.

Given adequate physiological and anatomical equipment (which Nature rarely fails to provide) and a modicum of knowledge of sexual techniques, the spouses will enjoy sexual union when both are in a collaborative mood. The collaborative mood exists when each is adding something to the sexual act, not just submitting. When the spouses are not in a loving mood, they still may find in sex a release from tension and thus derive another type of pleasure from it, especially if they are in agreement about what they expect, but it is likely to be less fulfilling and often may be frustrating, because one partner has contrary needs which are left unmet.

This sex act-a comparably simple matter-has become the most written about, the most talked of, and the most muddled aspect of marriage. There are several reasons why the role of sex in marriage has become excessively emphasized and distorted.

A cultural fear of sex’s losing its effective status in the social structure. This fear is as ancient at least as the Old Testament dictum that “a man … shall cleave unto his wife.” The expectation is that if this pronouncement is violated the species will not fulfill its obligation to procreate in a familial or nurturing setting.

The fear of desertion and abandonment. In our culture, this fear is stronger in women than in men. Women are tied down by the processes of childbearing and childbirth and require assistance physically and emotionally. In response to this fear, and to provide a weapon for fighting it, the belief has developed in our culture that if one is “sexy” enough, one’s mate will not desert. The result has been an exaggerated consciousness of sexual performance as a ritual to increase personal security in marriage or to induce marriage. Yet if one is “sexy” enough there is the danger of being too “sexy” and violating the ancient commandments.

The female’s simulation of sexiness. The male requires an erection to enter into the sex act. If he is uninterested in sex, or afraid of it, he will not have an erection. However, a woman does not have any obvious physiological indications of spontaneous readiness. She can fake sexual spontaneity, and the male (at least for a time) may not be aware of the deceit. The female extends this stimulation of sexual interest into parasexual areas by means of hair dyes, falsies, girdles, cosmetics, perfumes, and high heels. These parasexual devices scream, “Look, I’m sexy. I’m desirable.” This mayor may not be true, but it is probable that women resent their need to advertise and would prefer to be accepted as they really are; men resent the necessity for sexual deception even though they foster it.

The economic forces in our culture sustain and stimulate these hypocritical actions. Any attempt to alter the pattern involves resisting the advertising and other merchandising techniques used by multibillion-dollar businesses to peddle false female sexuality. The women who attempt to retain a “natural” appearance, with undoctored hair, no makeup, and so forth, are few in number, and they may (because of cultural conditioning) be regarded by both men and women as deviates. Most of the people who might be inclined to rebel against this type of sexual mores are intimidated by cultural pressures and mass value judgments.

Furthermore, the emphasis upon female sexual paraphernalia is an inherited social custom which long has been associated with the elite. In past ages, makeup, breast accentuators, and the like were worn mainly by the ruling classes, and the tendency to show upward social mobility by imitating the elite still exists. Even today, the wealthier the spouses, the more they exaggerate the difference between the sexes. The wife wears elegant gowns, elaborate hairdos, scintillating jewelry, and expensive furs and perfumes. Her husband may favor dark conservative suits, homburgs, and thick-soled, handmade English shoes.

The erroneous belief that unsatisfactory sexual relations are the major cause of bad marriages. The speciousness here is clear. Unsatisfactory sexual relations are a symptom of marital discord, not the cause of it. It is difficult for the victims to see this because of the mass of propaganda about sex that attacks them day and night, on the street, in the home, in the office. We are such an absurd culture that even mouthwashes and Lysol are related to the sexual aspects of marriage.

John Jones, for example, is dissatisfied with his marriage. On his way to work he may look up and see a billboard with a picture of a nearly nude, beautiful woman, advertising a brand of stockings. John is stimulated sexually and says to himself, “Boy, I’d like to have an affair with something like that.” He knows this is wishful thinking, and may even recognize that the beautiful model might be incompatible with him. Next he retreats from the daydream and his thoughts turn toward his wife. But the sexual fantasy he has had about the girl in the ad colors his reflections about his marriage relationship, and he thinks, “Golly, Mary’s legs might look better in that kind of hosiery.” What he means is, “If Mary were a better sexpot we’d both have a happier marriage.” He is caught in a double error: the appearance of Mary’s legs has nothing to do with the couple’s sexual satisfaction, and he has forgotten his own function in achieving a successful union.

Such a process may be repeated frequently during the day, for John is never permitted to escape advertisements which suggest that sexuality is the key to happiness. Yet there is considerable evidence that an individual’s perception of the sexual relationship is more related to marital satisfaction than the sexual act itself.

In a survey conducted at an Ohio university, interviews of several hundred couples showed that by and large those who reported their marriages as satisfactory gave the frequency of their intercourse as twice a week. Those who reported their marriages as “unsatisfactory” also reported a frequency of twice a week, yet among the unhappy couples the husbands said that twice a week was more than their wives wished but satisfactory from their point of view, and the wives said it was less than their husbands wished but just right for them personally. The “happy” husbands and wives said the frequency of twice a week was satisfying to both themselves and their spouses. In other words, the problem was in the couples’ communication and not in the actual frequency of their sexual relations.

While sexual problems are often blamed for marital difficulties, one is seldom made aware of the other side of the coin: sexual relations may keep some marriages going, providing virtually the only kind of contact which the spouses have. Psychiatrists and other professionals who treat marital problems are aware that some individuals have been able to establish successful sexual relations with each other although they cannot get together in any other context. Many of these couples have the experience of waking at night to discover themselves involved in sex, with neither partner aware of who took the initiative.

The differences between male and female. The physical differences between male and female contribute to the novelty and adventure of sex. Heterosexuality is extra-fascinating and carries with it the illusion of intrigue. At the same time, the differences make understanding one another more difficult. Also, the excessive emphasis on sex as the major factor in marriage results in a distorted viewpoint. The natural differences between male and female are made to appear crucial for the success of a marriage. Actually, a woman will not improve her marriage by achieving a voluptuous bust, legs like a model, and an aura of exotic perfume. If her marriage is an unhappy one, her husband may develop a preference for small-breasted women who dress plainly and do not wear perfume.

Having reviewed some reasons for mistaken attitudes toward sexual intercourse, let us now take a look at its actual role in marriage. What is special about sexual intercourse, a highly satisfying male-female symbiosis, is that it requires a higher degree of collaborative communication than any other kind of behavior exchanged between the spouses. Sex is consequently precious, but also perilous. It is the only relationship act which must have mutual spontaneity for mutual satisfaction. It can only be a conjoint union, and it represents a common goal which is clear and understood by both.

The reason people keep asking where sex fits into marriage is that they have been hoodwinked, bamboozled, pressured, conned, and persuaded that the sexual act is compulsory in their lives and must be performed alike by everyone; the “standards” are established by advertisers, publicity for sexpot motion-picture stars, literature, movies, plays, television, and so on. But these are standards of fantasy. Therefore people ask silly questions: How often should we have sex? What is the best position? How intense should it be? Should we scratch and bite each other? What time of day should it be done? The questions sound like inquiries about the type of gymnastic procedures to be followed for attaining muscles like Mr. America’s or a rear end or bust like Miss America’s. Perhaps even worse off are the myriads of couples who don’t dare ask questions and just assume they must be abnormal because their own practice differs from some so-called standard.

The problem is obvious. In sex, trying to keep up with the Joneses is the road to disaster. To decide where sex fits into their particular marriage, a couple must look inward at the marriage, not outward at the deceptive advice and make-believe standards set by others. There are no standards, and most “advice” from friends or family is misleading, for few people can speak honestly about their own sex life. Rather than admit their own sex problems and misgivings, friends often let one assume that their sex experiences are indeed superior; otherwise, the implication is, and they wouldn’t be giving advice.

The role that either sex has to play is, as we have seen, determined by the social structure of the surrounding community. The social conventions of today, however, exact no definite behavior from either sex. Each individual has to establish his own behavior pattern as man or woman. There are many ways of expressing “masculinity” and “femininity.” It rests with each individual to decide what kind of man or woman he wishes to become.

As long as we regard masculinity as identical with superiority-and doubtless most men and women do so-the concepts that we develop of our own sexual role correspond to this superstition. Even the most ardent champions of feminine equality will probably aver that a “real man” is supposed to be strong, self-sufficient, courageous, and reliable, and that any man not meeting these demands probably shows “feminine” traits. The word effeminate–or, colloquially, sissy-indicates the general disparagement of “feminine” qualities. Actually, responsibility, the desire to work, to contribute, and even to support, are not yet recognized as obligations of any human being, regardless of sex. The notion of man being the stronger sex is responsible for many odd ideas which confuse people’s conceptions of their own sexual role, of their obligations or limitations.

Children at a very early age develop definite, but not always correct, conceptions of the social role attributed to their own sex. They are impressed and stimulated by the social implication of sex before they realize its emotional and physiological significance. As a rule, boys have much more liberty in every kind of activity. A girl who behaves like a boy is called a tomboy, a term implying specifically masculine traits. (The appellation tomboy, by the way, is far less contemptuous than the denunciatory term sissy.) Helping at home, cooking, cleaning, and mending are still demanded mostly of girls, especially in communities retaining European customs. Today, men wash dishes, too sometimes; but still in condescension. Yet the practice indicates a general trend toward more cooperation, difficult for European men to follow.

Many girls believe that woman’s place in society is subordinate. They either submit to their fate, seeking compensations in the feminine way, or they rebel and avoid anything feminine. The former attempts to win a respectable place in a masculine world by cultivating charm and helplessness and at the same time avoid responsibility. In short, strives to be a typical “ladylike” in their deportment. The latter, those girls with strong masculine protests, refuse to achieve feminine maturity. They hate to look feminine; they abhor the menstrual function. Many girls do not go to this extreme. They may surrender to the general pressure and take pains with their appearance. But regardless of how feminine they may look, their protest becomes apparent on various occasions. They may try to prove that, as women, they can be as good as any man and perhaps even better. Very often they avoid recognizing their opposition to men and remain unaware of what has caused their sexual and marital difficulties.

A Case of Transvestitism

Rejection of the feminine role may reach almost unimaginable extremes. One day a young man consulted me. When asked about his problems, he revealed that he was a girl. The patient was in the middle twenties. The masculine appearance was caused not only by clothing, but by a definite way of speaking and by specifically masculine mannerisms. Even the voice was characteristic more of a man with glandular deficiency than of a woman. She had come because she needed help in a very unusual predicament. In order to get a job in Austria, it was necessary to present identification papers. Hers revealed her feminine name, which was embarrassing and confusing. She was now seeking permission to change her name to a masculine one. I was puzzled. How could she wear men’s clothes since this practice was forbidden to a woman? She showed me a written permit from the police and explained how she had obtained it. When she wore women’s attire, she attracted unpleasant attention in the street, because everyone believed she was a man masquerading as a woman. She walked like a boy; her whole attitude was decidedly mannish, so that the police were forced to give her this unusual permission.

A physical examination disclosed the normal primary and secondary sexual characteristics; the breasts were fully developed, the distribution of hair was typically feminine, as were the hips. The menstrual period was regular. A laboratory analysis proved that the glands functioned normally. There was not the slightest evidence of any physical or biological abnormality. Her unusual development proved to be caused by different factors.

She had been born in a rural district of Austria, the first child of a farmer. In that part of the world, girls were not in high esteem. Peasants need at least one boy to inherit the farm and to replace the father when he wishes to retire. Consequently, her parents had hoped for a boy. Unfortunately for the girl, a young brother was born two years later. It is not difficult to imagine her reaction to the situation. Realizing her precarious position, she refused to accept a secondary role. She made full use of the few years in her favor to maintain her superiority over her brother, physically and mentally. Yet it was not sufficient that he submitted to her dominance. He still was a boy and she only a girl. To win this battle, she had to overcome this handicap, too. So she tried to behave like a boy. She played with boys exclusively and became wilder than any of them. She was a regular tomboy, but even this compensation was insufficient. She delighted in dressing her brother in girl’s clothes, while she herself put on his garments.

The parents enjoyed the masquerade and encouraged it.

Everyone thought it was “cute:’ She heard many favorable comments about her looking like a boy; people remarked that she would have made a better boy than her brother, who had become quite subdued and docile, and, in his timidity, dependent upon his stronger sister. This success naturally encouraged her to continue and even intensify her efforts. When she grew older, she adapted herself more and more to this coveted masculine role. In every one of her movements, in her gait, in her mannerisms, she was a typical boy. She even became fond of girls, but in a protective and gallant way. When she began to develop physically, she fought against any sign of femininity. She hated her breasts. She pressed them down in tight garments so that they would be inconspicuous. She disregarded her menstrual function completely and did not let it interfere with any athletic activities. She never developed any feminine traits, skills, or features, and had her hair cut in boyish fashion.

The moment of her greatest triumph came when she obtained permission of the police to wear masculine attire. But the logic which she tried to defy brought her into new conflicts. Now she needed a masculine name. This was not easy under Austrian law; but as the authorities had been compelled to yield the first time, it was necessary and logical to take the next step and grant her permission to use a name which was applicable to either sex. But a psychiatric recommendation was requested by the police. The girl was very enthusiastic. I tried in vain to convince her that, despite her successes, she was still fighting a lost battle. She still remained a woman, regardless of her ability to fool herself and others. Unless she accepted the role of her sex, she was bound to get into greater difficulties. But, like many people with sexual perversions, she did not want any advice or help and flatly refused to discuss her psychological problems.

To my surprise, she appeared again about one year later. I first thought she might now ask for psychiatric treatment. However, she came only to demand another service in her fight against society, which had marked her as an inferior being. She had fallen in love with a girl, and she expected me to make it possible for her to marry this girl. Of course, this was beyond anyone’s power, and I never saw her again.

Whenever the established equilibrium between the sexes is shattered and the heretofore suppressed sex has the opportunity to rise, it imitates the behavior and mannerisms of the formerly superior sex. We have examples of this tendency in certain primitive communities. It may be during such a period of declining matriarchal structure that one peculiar form of behavior is observed-and often misunderstood and misinterpreted-namely, couvades. After the birth of a child, the father took the baby with him to bed and stayed there several days, while the mother had to perform all the household tasks and take care of father and child. It seems that the man tried to imitate the female role. Where women are dominant, everything typically feminine may appear desirable to men. One wonders whether men in that period would not have tried to bear children, too, had nature permitted.

Similar contemplations may explain the behavior of women today. In some levels of the population, smoking has become more popular among women than with men, and men have to resort to pipes in order to maintain some kind of distinction. The old American habit of women smoking pipes may have characterized social changes and an early emancipation of women during the time of American pioneering, which gave women tasks and rights they had never had before. There was more factual equality between men and women than in the old countries. The impulse, which may even counteract an initial dislike for smoking, stems from women’s longing for masculinity, as it expresses in youngsters the desire to feel grown up. Other characteristic signs of our present state of transition are tendencies among women to assume masculine attire or hairdress. All these imitations do not signify actual equality, but indicate only an attempt by women to accentuate the change in their status.

The Function of the Sexes

Each individual develops a certain conception of the role of his own sex, the acceptance or rejection of which modifies personal attitudes and affects almost every phase of everyday life. A woman’s attitude toward domestic work, for instance, is a good test of what she conceives the role of women to be. The arguments pro and can must not deceive us. We can hear reasons why domestic work is desirable and why detestable-all equally good. The number of women who prefer housework to any other job is gradually diminishing. Many women resent this kind of “profession” because they consider it inferior or humiliating; they associate it with the derogatory conception of the feminine role.

This association also keeps many men from participating in house duties. Housework has been the responsibility of women for so many centuries that it will take quite some time before men and women can look objectively upon certain duties necessary for the welfare of all.

During the period of their complete suppression women were to a certain degree excluded from artistic productivity. Actresses and dancers were socially degraded as indecent. Many women who look for their place in society now accentuate their interest in art, music, drama, dance, etc., to a point that art becomes almost a feminine prerogative. Is it not the privilege and duty of any human being, regardless of sex, to participate in artistic activity?

Many men have yielded to women their interest in the arts. A boy who is interested in studying the piano is often called a sissy. Women frequently find it difficult to induce their husbands to join them in reading books, in attending lectures or concerts, or in visiting museums and exhibitions. In fact, some women do not even try sincerely, because they are proud of this distinction between their respective interests. And men are only too delighted to pay this small price for the continuation of their supremacy.

The general concept of the masculine role seems to be that the man’s job is primarily to make money. This conception is dangerous. It places exclusively in the hands of man the power which money still maintains. At the same time, it impedes man’s appreciation of culture and general knowledge which could modify and temper his economic power. The danger of unscrupulous misuse of this power increases with the neglect of man’s cultural development.

If women continue to be deluded by the advantages of convenient support, they will prolong their dependency.

The tendency to divide the social duties between the sexes is not based on biological factors, and specialized duties are fundamentally neither inferior nor superior. They are merely human obligations. In the distribution of work, certain tasks are allotted to each sex by custom and habit; they are considered as pleasant or distasteful according to the social position of the sex which performs each particular function. For the maintenance of marital life, the task of doing housework and that of earning money are of equal importance. If one earnestly believes in equality, one will be ready to do whatever is at the moment most necessary and most constructive and attach little importance to what is generally considered the proper sexual role. Despite all their nice words, few men or women are as yet ready to practice equality. The present problems of masculine and feminine adjustment cannot be solved merely by separating masculine and feminine activities and by establishing the respective competence of any sex in one well-defined field. Such a decision might relieve the competition temporarily, but it postpones the establishment of cooperation between equals.

Most of us in this country are taught diplomacy, decorum, and the art of self-restraint. Many husbands and wives believe that politeness, consideration, and benevolence are important in a marriage, and not wishing to be rejected, they may attempt to practice these arts unremittingly.

If spouses are thoughtful of each other on all occasions, the likelihood is that they have a sick marriage. It is obvious that individuals have competing tendencies-different interests, different ways of using time, different biological rhythms, and so on -and they cannot always have the same desires, needs, wishes, or whatever at the same time. The problem then is: What should they do when conflicts arise?

There are several possible answers, but the most important one is that the individual should do what he feels he has to do at this particular moment, and should believe enough in the durability of the marriage to withstand even a period of hate from the other spouse. When such conflicts do not ever arise, it must be concluded that the spouses are peculiarly lucky in having chosen partners with exactly the same values, tastes, needs, and so on, or that somebody is sacrificing quietly and will unwittingly pay the other spouse back.

This may sound like explosive propaganda. But the alternative is a relationship in which one spouse thinks so little of his partner that he cannot permit an independent act that happens to displease him for the time being. How can spouses trust each other if they never have any disagreements? How does each know what the other really thinks and feels if he is accommodating and thoughtful all the time? For all anyone can tell, one spouse may secretly hate the other’s guts.

Tom Henderson was a successful insurance executive with a mad passion for golf. He had been planning for some time to attend a golf clinic being given in Concord, Massachusetts, by his favorite professional. Not only was he delighted to have the opportunity to work with his favorite pro, but knowing this geographical area he realized that coming here would be very pleasant for his wife and two children; they could rent an attractive older home, swim in a nearby lake, and engage in many of the pleasant activities of the city. Mary, his wife, was a bit reluctant, particularly because she was not well acquainted with the East and wasn’t sure what she was getting into. However, Tom’s enthusiasm overcame her reluctance, and the kids were always eager for a vacation.

But over the next few months a subtle campaign of propaganda was beamed toward Tom Henderson. It came from all directions. For example, Mrs. Smythe, Mary’s mother, had taken an apartment in Honolulu, near the beach. She wrote to her daughter that she wished the whole family would visit her, and described what a wonderful time the children would have. Thereafter, the advantages for the children formed the core of Mary’s propaganda campaign. Magazines with pictures of brown skinned, lithe surfers lay exposed on the coffee table and occasionally at the writing desk. Also, knowing Tom’s interest in golf, Mary one morning read him an article about a recent golfing match at the Waialae Country Club. She mentioned with a shy smile that her friend Nancy, who lived in Honolulu, had told her that golfers consider a round at the course of the Oahu Country Club one of the great golfing experiences of all time.

While Mary spoke, Tom was hastily reading his mail and finishing his last mouthful of coffee. Not until he had nearly reached his office did it occur to him to wonder, “How come Mary’s interested in golf all of a sudden?”

“Oh, well.” He turned to the tasks of the day. His errant thought lay untended and died.

When Jane, their oldest daughter, celebrated her birthday in May, Mary presented her with a ukulele and a book of twelve easy lessons.

Now the propaganda had reached the stage where it became obvious even to Tom. One night he confronted his wife. “Darling,” he said, “I thought we had agreed we were going to Concord this summer for our vacation. Now 1 get the impression that you’re pushing for Honolulu.”

Mary regarded him with her wide, startlingly blue eyes much as she would a man from Mars suddenly appearing in her bedroom.

Tom absently nodded and went into the bathroom to brush his teeth. He felt like a bit of a stinker for having raised the question, but something was still tugging at his mind and he was not satisfied. When he got to bed he went right to sleep, with no thought of being amorous. Mary didn’t rest well that night, for the hand that grasps for power is always a bit shaky.

As the days went by, Tom was reminded by both children of what a wonderful place Hawaii is. He suspected that Mary was putting them up to this, but where was the evidence? Jane seemed to have a new-found interest in hula lessons, and Tom junior spoke with wonder of the intricacies of surfing. Then one day Mary brought Tom a somewhat pleading letter from her mother describing her wish to see them and stating that a lovely apartment would become available close by during August-the very month that they were planning to spend in Concord. Now Tom was no longer in doubt. He recognized the nature of the enemy, but almost as quickly as he turned to fight he found his resistance fading. What father likes to deny his children? What husband wishes to keep his wife separated from her aged mother (whom she may never see alive again), and from school chums whom she hasn’t seen in many years? Who can deny the beauty of Hawaii and the excellence of its golfing spots? And so Tom succumbed and erected in place of the defeat in the Battle of Concord an icon at which he daily worshiped: the image of Tom Henderson, Family Man.

Mary’s mother was waiting for them at the airport in Honolulu.

Although the Henderson family had been surfeited with food and drink, everyone accepted grandma’s gracious hospitality as she took them to lunch at the Outrigger Club. Leaning against the back of his chair and looking out at the sparkling Pacific, Tom sipped his favorite beer, hoping that some appetite would come so that he would not have the embarrassment of being the only one not eating. He half listened to the cheery conversation as grandma told the children about the wonders they would soon behold. Mary interrupted; running in and out of the conversation like a track star with what Tom considered wife-type questions: ‘Where can you get this?” “Where’s the best place to buy that?”

Since first getting on the plane Tom had been aware of a slow ball of dread forming in his stomach, and now it felt distended. He had been helped on the flight by two vodka martinis and half a bottle of Chablis, but the liquor hadn’t dissolved the lump in his gut. It had only anesthetized the surrounding area. Tom sat there, and to his horror he began to feel hate-not for the children, not for his mother-in-law, but for Mary. Suddenly, for the first time in the months of propaganda and the weeks of knowing that he had been hoodwinked, he experienced a surge of resoluteness. He sat straighter, and gulped his beer instead of swishing it around like mouthwash.

Tom had a plan, but he said nothing about it. He allowed his mother-in-law to pay for the lunch, and made arrangements for transporting their huge pile of baggage to the apartment. He worked hard helping the family get settled and even went with Mary to the supermarket to lay in a stock of food. He had time for these things because his plane did not leave until midnight.

Mrs. Smythe had them over to supper. Tom went through the routine of replying to meaningless questions about his work and how his golf game was faring, and played an All about Hawaii word game with the kids. Finally the Hendersons left grandmas. When they reached their own apartment, Tom called his family into the small living room and told them, as dispassionately and kindly as he could, that he was leaving on that midnight plane for San Francisco and had been lucky enough to secure a connecting Hight to New York. When his wife, with her white, stricken face, started to open her mouth, Tom held up his hand and said, in a tone stronger than he usually employed, «Let me finish.” Talking to the children, so that Mary could listen without feeling so attacked, he explained that he was not leaving the family, but was doing something that he felt he had to do. He recognized that his decision was expensive, would upset the rest of the family, and would ruin him forever in his mother-in-law’s eyes. He would like to rejoin them in two weeks, and would be very sad if they were so immutably angry about his decision that he was no longer welcome; however, this was a chance he would have to take. He had counted on this golf vacation for a long time and-he reminded them without an air of martyrdom-it had been many years since they had taken the vacation he wanted. He stated that at times it was necessary to do something drastic to break a pattern that was forming, and this one threatened to encrust not just the marriage, but the interrelationships of the entire family.

Then he told them that he was not willing to discuss the matter, since his decision was irrevocable. Here he was wise, for there is nothing more useless than beating and bloodying a fait accompli with hopeless argumentation. His wife’s response was to run crying from the room. Tom had expected this, and it did not curb his resolution. He kissed the children and, sad but erect, walked down the long stairs.

All this occurred ten years ago. The Hendersons are still married, and enjoy a mutual respect that was formerly missing. During her husband’s absence Mary recognized that she was something of a spoiled child. She recalled that her own father had rarely gotten his way, and did not fight for it. As a result, Mrs. Smythe had grown more and more into a skillful manipulator and dictator, often using the excuse that something was «best for Mary” to get her own way. The parallel was very obvious to Mary, and she respected Tom for breaking the mold. They eventually agreed that for them the only workable system would be to take turns in making decisions, since this would eliminate the need for covert maneuvering and propagandizing through the children.

The Honolulu episode also proved useful in another way. During the two weeks Tom was in Concord, Mary performed superbly. To her own surprise she found that her anger at him gave her the strength to enjoy the children in a manner she had not experienced before.

The Henderson story came close to having a very different ending. But great changes are built upon risk taking.